O'Reilly, Hannity, and Limbaugh Are About The Money

I have one thing to say about Democrats, they are really idealistic. Barrack Obama says it isn't just an ideal, it's a truth that we have to make happen. He scares the hell out of the Rich and Greedy set. Democrats in this election said, "We are going to spread the wealth." That doesn't mean they are going to take anything away from anyone's bank account, as the Republican propagandists would have you believe. It only means that the Unlimited Greedy will have to pay their fair share. THEY DON'T WANT TO DO THAT!!! If Rush Limbaugh found out today that the Democrats and Republicans had switched financial policies and the Democrats were defending lowering taxes for the Rich and the Republicans started wanting more income taxes and more government programs to actually help people, then, O'Reilly, Hannity, and Rush would be on the air immediately as staunch supporters of Abortion, Gay Marriage, and Unlimited Individual Freedoms for all Americans. They are part of the propaganda machine. That is where the word 'propagate' comes from.
Let me explain something here. There is a man named Rupert Murdoch who owns Fox News and several other cable news networks. He did own Al Jazeera English until I and other bloggers made it public that he was using the same propaganda on both stations. While openly admitting that all the nonsense Al Jazeera English was broadcasting was extemist nonsense, no one was paying attention to the fact that the same nonsense was coming out of the mouths of all reporters of both stations because he thought he was safe, since he already has the "Murdoch Nation" convinced that Al Jazeera is a propaganda channel while Fox News is "fair and balanced". Al Jazeera even uses the slogan "fair and balanced" and I think Fox might have stolen it from them. If you spread lies on two channels, you have to convince the people who listen to each of them to ignore the other one.
This is what FAUX NEWS listeners actually believe, that when FAUX NEWS in the only one who has a different twist on an "Associated Press" story and they actually believe it is because they are the only ones being honest. They spread fear and controversy in the same way his father's newspapers did. They were tabloid news and he is now, he thinks the word news is just a formality to add in order to legitimate his brainwashing tactics in order to keep avoiding paying taxes and he will endorse any candidate that will act supportive of deregulation of ethics standards. One of the reasons that the newspaper and other news businesses are having trouble is because they don't really supply news anymore, they make it up. The controversy with Lou Dobbs being asked to step down brought up an interesting phrase that I am sure Dobbs didn't invent. He called OPINION INSTEAD OF FACT NEWS ADVOCACY JOURNALISM. Bill O'Reilly makes a big deal verbally of how the public likes it better when it is all opinion.
Here is my point, we can call it advocacy journalism, we can call it opinionated news, you can call it tabloid journalism, etc. but, what you can not do is make a story with isn't honest be the truth. That is the point. The news isn't supposed to be entertaining, it is supposed to be informative.
When Walter Kronkite used to sign off with, "And that's the way it is..." then we believed him. He didn't give twenty minute disertations on one subject, followed by five other guys editorializing about the same story and all of them openly agreeing with each other. I never saw anyone on that station fake crying or yelling at someone who is reporting the truth, talking over them, and saying things like, "Knock it off!" and continuing to interrupt them and then dismiss them from their air time without listening to their side.
OK, try to follow me here; this is the part I don't understand: How can the Rich and Greedy trick the poor Republicans, the minority Republicans, and anyone who isn't rich and greedy like they are? (This country was founded by Rich, Aristocratic, Deists that, by the way, don't believe in God, much less a mainstream religion(not Christians, that is a myth, they were deists that came her to get away from the church of England), White Slave Owners) that these people are getting the same benefits as the Rich and Greedy? The wealth of our nation was built from the work of slaves and other less affluent immigrants. Our Constitution was, almost like the Marx Eutopian Society, set up to end unfairness and phase themselves out. Of course most Republicans will never read Karl Marx because they have been told he is a Socialist, Communist, etc. Karl Marx was a sociologist and an author who happened to live in a socialist country. Otherwise, they wouldn't have stated that all men were created equal while owning slaves. The Civil Rights Amendment only added to what was already written. His theory was that there are only two classes, the owners and the workers. His idea was that EVERYONE SHOULD DO THEIR FAIR SHARE and GET PAYED THEIR FAIR SHARE and PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE OF TAXES. Rich people don't like that, that would make everyone equal and they wouldn't be able to take advantage of everyone else. So, they call the form of Corporatism that we have in the United States "Capitalism". If there were no advertisers, no lobbyists, no monopolies, no financial squeezing OUT of smaller businesses then, it would work the way it was set up. If one goes on some informational website that doesn't have a propaganda type agenda, like say, dictionary.com, they can learn what capitalism actually is supposed to be. "cap-i-tal-ism - an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth."
I had a sociology teacher that made us all describe ourselves as "something-Americans" (African American, Mexican American, Asian American, Native American, or European American.) She also challenged the idea that there was a Middle Class. That was, as she described it, a myth propogated by the owner class in order to make one who is worker class feel different from his fellows. She demonstrated how the Owner Class actually like dissention between the workers because then they were fighting amongst each other instead of aiming their displeasure at the Owners who actually are taking advantage. She also had us look into commercial advertising. I came away with an opinion that almost sounded like a conspiracy theory. But, if you watch who the commercials are aimed at, working class families of each cultural background are depicted in the commericals telling us to use the cheapest foods (that are coincidentally the least healthy), tobacco, alcohol, and spend money on traveling to adventuresome recreations such as casinos, amusement parks, etc. and all of which require you spend all your income. These are the same people who require 40 of you to pay their share of their income taxes so they don't have to. They always talk about how much money they lost. They are talking about projected income. That would be like you or I, knowing we would only earn 60,000 dollars this year, telling the IRS, "Well, I expected to at least double that, and so I figure I lost at least 60, 000." If some IRS agent was dense enough to believe us and let us write the entire thing off, then, hey, who will make up for it? You and I. That is who pays their share. OK, then, can you tell me what the difference between what Karl Marx described about the owners and the workers and this definition of capitalism is? You see, the people who run companies are allowed to let the company (under corporation laws) be responsible for any problems legally or financially while they get to take the majority of the money out and then pay less taxes on a percentage basis than their workers. So, once again, I do most of the work, you make most of the money, and I pay most of the taxes. Why?
Younger people may not remember a time in America when there was loyalty from both the employer and the employee. Holliday bonuses were plentiful and profit sharing was a common thing. If you produced, you made more money. Benefits weren't a matter of discretion of the employer, they were just understood to be a part of your job. Then we had people making money out of another form of slavery. Sweat shops and illegal alien labor were not common. They were actually considered a way for only the businessmen with no scruples instead of the norm. Now, instead of having a large family to work the farm, the farm owner buys unGodly amounts of acreage and hires people who will work for less than minimum wage and no benefits. The good old days had a large drawback. There was actual work involved. Opportunity always knocks, but, it usually comes disguised as hard work. Ask any legal immigrant who owns his own business here.
Slave owners had to feed and clothe and shelter slaves so they could continue to work. If all you earn now is enough to take care of those basic needs, what is the difference?
Morgan Spurlock, the author/filmmaker who produced the movie, "Supersize Me" came up with a television series called "30 Days". He takes on another lifestyle for 30 days to see what it is like. The latest one I saw tonight of his was called "Minimum Wage" in which the subject matter was selfexplanatory. His girlfriend came with him and it became interesting because they weren't used to living as "the working poor" before. They had arguments over money and the statement was made that people who make $25,000 get divorced twice as much as people who make $50,000 a year. Spurlock invited his brother's two kids to come and stay with them for a weekend during Easter. He was trying to give the kids a pleasurable stay. She got upset when he spent $1.20 for two sweet buns for the kids. She stated that she walked to work to save $2.50 a day and then he was just spending it all. The person in a relationship who is making more money than they other ususally feels they deserve to spend more. The person who makes less usually sees this as unfair. This was a good example of how and why so many Americans made get divorced. The main expense, of course was the two emergency room bills that they were given. Each of them was sore, tired and not feeling well after a few days. His wrist was aching and swollen. She was getting headaches and feeling run down. It turned out later on that she had a urinary tract infection. Between the two of them, their bills totalled $1,271.00 His emergency room fee was over 500 dollars and hers was 300 dollars, for each of them, just to walk into the emergency room. He made mention that this was ridiculous. Money may not buy happiness but poverty can sure create misery. We are the only industrialised country in the world that doesn't have government run health care, even though we pay over twice what anyone else does in income tax.
Minimum wage is preposterous even if two people are earning it and as long as the wealthy of our nation are more interested in trying to take it with them instead of being fair, then, we are never going to be happy.
I will refresh some memories and instill some wisdom in others who aren't as old. I remember when there was this thing called "the draft". In those days, the phrase, "War, pestilence, and plague meant something." The war part meant that the surplus population would be weeded out by our military. We didn't have an overpopulation process and during war time the "Chicken Hawks" loved it because the majority of the competition for all the good paying jobs of any kind was being killed off or at least stationed in a foreign land. Now we need to come up with another plan since that one wasn't worth it. If I start talking about forced sterilization, then, some will become angry and start talking about Nazi Germany and Euthanasia. The Catholic Church has created millions of extra humans in oder for them to tithe and carry the majority vote. Now they need to feed them instead of expecting the rest of us to. With advances in medicine and the health mindedness becoming more popular we are going to have more people living longer. Eventually we will be standing on top of each other with a few people sitting in their mansions and penthouses looking down on the rest of us and thinking, "My God, I am glad I don't live like that."

Many Dollars and No Sense!

The auto industry in the U.S. hasn't listened to what we need but seems only to be interested in what they need. More money. The price of a car, house, and anything else that we used to consider part of the American Dream for us right now is ridiculous. While everyone debates what is fair, what is OK, what is intelligent, and what is feasable we are without jobs, money, health insurance, and a viable economy and I can't wait until another administration takes office. John McCain said himself that we are tired of doing half measures and merely hoping we get lucky. There will a lot more to come. Instead of the politicians treating our economy, which is saved from our taxes, like their own personal piggybank, WE have to decide what to do for ourselves. We elected someone intelligent for a change and NOW we have to wait until he takes office. In less than 30 more days he is coming. With the present administration still doing stupid things on a daily basis (Like today's impromptu, unannounced, surprise visit to Iraq to try to screw up something else before it's too late.) trying to make their stay in office look better than what it actually is. In my opinion this is; The worst group of incompetents that has ever graced the steps of the white house who most arrogantly screw up things faster than they can be fixed and don't admit to their own mistakes. So, what's next? Georgie Bush already tried to do some photo 'ops with kids again. While I was writing this the politicians picked up the same idea and are talking about refusing to bail out the Auto industry. Wow, this is going to be really strange. Let's just trash the manufacturing business while we are at it. President Obama, can you hurry please? George Bush even said he would like you to take over now. PLEASE, let us have someone smart in the White House.

Unlimited Greed in America

The rich tried to campaign as Republican values to even the less intelligent of our society. The Newsweek polls show Barrack Obama ahead by thirteen points. You can't pay attention to that because that website is visited only by people who can read. One can't go by polls. How many of you actually participate in polls? Think about it. They are visited by a few people compared to the actual people who vote. I personally don't think someone who only remembers that "the white guy" is the one he is going to vote for should be allowed to register to vote. If you can't remember your own name you shouldn't be allowed to register. Barry Goldwater used to fill vans full of old people in rest homes (some of whom didn't know who they were without help) and drive them to the polls to vote for him. The republican party campaigns to the less intelligent of our society and teaches them campaign slogans to yell mindlessly (reminds me of a movie about zombies chanting) and tries to make these inbreds think they are getting the same breaks as the rich special interest groups give to themselves. I wondered how long it would take for them to realise they were getting screwed. It seems this was the year that some people who have become apathetic finally woke up. Thank You, thinking America. We will see how they try to disallow our votes this election. If it happens again, I give up. That will mean that our country has become a facist country (look it up, it means "corporatism") as defined by Lawrence Britt ( http://www.rense.com/general37/fascism.htm ) years ago in his article, then about Nazi Germany. Read it and think about the present administration. Here is the deal. If one is voting on an issue concerning economic issues, shouldn't they be required to understand economics?
My other question is, "Why hire an economic professional if you aren't going to listen to him?" Here is a quote about the recent problem.

"...Greenspan, who stepped down in 2006, called the banking and housing chaos a "once-in-a-century credit tsunami" that led to a breakdown in how the free market system functions. And he warned that things would get worse before they get better, with rising unemployment and no stabilization in housing prices for "many months."
Gloomy economic reports backed him up. New jobless claims soared to just under 500,000 for last week, and Goldman Sachs, Chrysler and Xerox all said they were cutting thousands more workers. On Wall Street, the Dow Jones industrials bounced erratically all day before finishing up 172 points _ after a two-day drop of nearly 750.
The financial crisis even prompted the Republican Greenspan, a staunch believer in free markets, to propose that government consider tougher regulations, including requiring financial firms that package mortgages into securities to keep a portion as a check on quality.
He said other regulatory changes should be considered, too, in such areas as fraud. "
If you or I did that sloppy of a job at work (e.g. Someone from packing and shipping decided to make a journal entry on the books instead of waiting for the accounting department to handle it.) they would be fired.

One of the most agonizingly aggravating things to me is that most of the people who think they know something about our economics in our country is based on information that they get from politicians. Politicians are not economics majors, obviously. If we were to elect an economics major to any government position in the U.S. then, we would be guaranteed to have a better idea of what we need to do. The problem is that most citizens here find economics boring and too hard to understand. The part where principals meet the road comes down to lack of education. If any of you wish to differ with anything I have to say then, PLEASE look up "Capitalism" on Wikipedia and read all the related articles. Especially check out the page on Supply Side Economics. That is what politicians TALK ABOUT when referring to Reaganomics or "Trickle Down Economics". They aren't the same thing. Let me give you an example. "The typical policy recommendation of supply-side economics is to achieve the proper level of marginal tax rates, which, by virtue of the high rate of taxes in general, equates with cutting of taxes.[2] Maximum benefits are achieved by optimizing the marginal tax rates of those with high-incomes and capital who are deemed as most likely to increase supply and thus spur growth.[3] Keynesian macroeconomics, by contrast, contends that tax cuts should be used to increase demand, not supply, and thus should be targeted at cash-strapped, lower-income households, who are more likely to spend additional income."

Let me give you an example. Who spends money on spinning rims, pin-stripe paint jobs, fattening foods, and fake jewelry? Poor people. When they spend money it goes into "The Economy" as we wish. If illegal drugs, prostitution, and manufacture of technical devices such as bootleg software, immitation through fraud (*e.g. someone buying a concrete block in a cardboard box while trying to buy a stolen computer.) did not exist, our economy exists on crime and other negative influences. Unfortunately we find that the statement that, "War is good for business.", is only actually good if you are in the petroleum or munitions businesses.
Monopolies are supposed to be illegal here but they are rampant. In the U.S., as long as you can pay your corrupt politicians then, you can maintain a monopoly. Inovation has certain demands as long as we have copyrights and patents that can expire. As long as Telecommunications, Insurance, Petroleum, Tobacco, High Tech, Alcohol, and Unhealthy Food Manufacturers can buy lobbyists we are always going to have injustice that is rationalised as "Good For The Economy" then they will always exist.

As I said before, Karl Marx wasn't a socialist, he was an economics and sociology expert. Lenin used the term 'Marxist' as if he was talking about the same thing. Karl Marx said there were only two classes. Business owners and workers (everyone else). Anyone who has studied sociology comes to understand that his works were very insightful even though they were controversial. No one likes to think he is lower class. Let me give you an example. When slavery was legal in the United States, slaves were given a roof over their heads, clothing, and food. If you can barely afford that now, what is the difference between you and a slave? Did you sell yourself into indentureship? There are now too many controlling special interest groups lobbying our lawmakers to allow them to continue keeping us broke. They are allowed to "inovate" in the "new technology". Was I absent the day we took a vote and asked to have all our electronics and automobiles changed in a way that made the last technology worthless instead of having it be able to be upgraded? The airwaves are free. They belong to US! Why do we pay for free things that we already own? It's the law. Congress has allowed the worlds of Insurance, Telecomunications, Electronics, and Vehicles to need to be replaced about every three years, maximum. Speak your mind, write your congressmen, and do that thing we need more of, THINK about and STUDY about how everything you buy effects you and improves your life. If it doesn't do either, then why should I pay extra for more of what I already have under the guise of it being NEW AND IMPROVED? The answer is always the same thing, "But, it has this other thing you can't use and never wanted." Advertisers even do it with laundry soap. I have brand MRA and a year later for a dollar more I get MRA New and Improved!, but it has dies and perfumes that I am allergic to and make my skin itch, so then I get MRA Free for another 50 cents more than New and Improved. So, for a dollar and 50 cents more I get the same product I had originally before the chemists and advertisers messed with it. Don't these people think I noticed that?
Don't get me started on software. I need version 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, all of which will run my printer if I only download a new driver for each one of them which is more of a pain and leaves me open for internet predators. The web browsers just got stupid after a while. Every one thought they needed a new version of chat programs so they could chat and Instant Message people. These all left the owner insecure because anytime you allow people access to your hard drive you might as well be using My Network and have a shared computer with settings to share with EVERYONE. All for the pleasure of typing your message to someone. HELLO! That is why someone invented this new thing you might have heard of, it's called a TELEPHONE, so I don't have to type my messages.


All for Now,

Arizona Mildman